Philosophy and theology teach that there are two kinds of
atheism, doctrinal or speculative, and practical. The first
consists in an open and direct denial of the existence of God;
the second consists in acting and living without denying the
existence of (50) God, but yet as if He did not really exist.
Those who profess the first are called theoretical or doctrinal
atheists; those who live according to the second, practical
atheists: the latter are the more numerous.

It is the same with Liberalism and Liberals. There are
theoretical and practical Liberals. The first are the dogmatizers
of the sect philosophers, the professors, the controversialists,
the journalists. They teach Liberalism in books, in discourses,
in articles, by argument or by authority, in conformity with a
rationalistic criterion in disguised or open opposition to the
criterion of the divine and supernatural revelation of Jesus
Christ.

Practical Liberalists are by far in the greater majority. Like
a flock of sheep, with closed eyes, they follow their leaders.
They know nothing in truth of principles and systems, and, did
they perceive the perversity of their instructors, would perhaps
detest them. But, deceived by a false cry or shibboleth, they
troop docilely after their false guides. They are none the less
the hands that act, while the theorists are the heads that
direct. Without them, Liberalism would never pass beyond the
narrow bounds of speculation. It is the practical Liberalists
that give it life and exterior movement. They constitute the
first (51) matter of Liberalism, disposed to take any form, ready
for any folly or absurdity proposed by the leaders.

Amongst Catholic Liberals many of them go to Mass, even make
novenas, and yet when they come in contact with the world lead
the lives of practical Liberals. They make it a rule "to
live up to the times," as they call it. The Church they
believe to be somewhat outofdate, an old fogy; that she is held
back by a certain set of reactionaries, Ultramontane; but they
have hopes that she will in the course of time catch up with the
modern spirit of progress, of which they are the van. The
barnacles of medievalism still encumber the bark of Peter, but
time, they believe, will remedy this. The straw of medieval
philosophy and theology they hope before long to thrash out by
the introduction of the modern spirit into her schools. Then will
a new theology be developed more in conformity with the needs of
the times, more in harmony with the modern spirit which makes
such large demands upon our "intellectual liberty." So
they believe (or imagine they believe) that all is well. Is their
responsibility before God, therefore, lessened? Assuredly not.
They sin directly in the light of faith. They are less excusable
than those Liberals who have never been within the pale of the
Church. In short they sin with their eyes open.

Amongst Liberals we must not forget to include those who
manage to evade any direct exposition or expression of the
Liberal theory, but who never the less obliquely sustain it in
their daily practice by writing and orating after the Liberal
method, but recommending Liberal books and men, measuring and
appreciating everything according to the Liberal criterion, and
manifesting on every occasion that offers, an intense hatred for
anything that tends to discredit or weaken their beloved
Liberalism. Such is the conduct of those prudent journalists,
whom it is difficult to apprehend in the flagrant advocacy of any
proposition concretely Liberal, but who nevertheless in what they
say and in what they do not say, never cease to labor for the
propagation of this cunning heresy. Of all Liberal reptiles,
these are the most venomous.